What is Distributive Justice?

Whenever we read about Justice, we always come across the term "Distributive Justice". This theory of Distributive Justice was widely discussed by John Rawls in his various books. During my college days, I worked on this topic. Following is a summary of my learning process in this regard.

According to John Rawls, Distributive Justice is the Justice in the distribution of goods/wealth. He also talks about Patterned (end-state) conceptions of distributive justice which says that there is some overall pattern of distribution we should aim at. He further says that Justice is a matter of closeness to the desired pattern.

Original Position

Rawls has developed his principles of Justice through an artificial device called as “Original Position” (OP). In OP, the principles of Justice are decided behind the Veil of Ignorance and this Veil blinds people to all facts about themselves that might hinder in the formation of the notion of Justice. He says that:

“No one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."

Veil of Ignorance

It is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g. slavery) based upon the following thought experiment: parties to the original position know nothing about their particular abilities, tastes, and position within the social order of society. The veil of ignorance blocks off this knowledge, such that one does not know what burdens and benefits of social cooperation might fall to him/her once the veil is lifted. With this knowledge blocked, parties to the original position must decide on principles for the distribution of rights, positions and resources in their society.

Veil of Ignorance is a process which determines the morality of certain issues such as slavery, distribution of income etc. by adopting the following procedure:

1.      Parties to the original position (A hypothetical society) know nothing about their particular abilities, tastes, and position within the social order of society.

2.      The veil of ignorance blocks off this knowledge, such that one does not know what burdens and benefits of social cooperation might fall to him/her once the veil is lifted.

3.      With this knowledge blocked, parties to the original position must decide on principles for the distribution of rights, positions and resources in their society.

Reflective Equilibrium

Reflective equilibrium is a state of balance or coherence among a set of beliefs arrived at by a process of deliberative mutual adjustment among general principles and particular judgments.

According to Rawls, the parties in the OP would adopt two principles which would govern the rights and duties as well as control the dissemination of social and economic advantages in the society.

The Two Principles of Justice

First Principle: Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all;

Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:

a.       They are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity;

b.      They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). 

These principles were previously different in his book “A Theory of Justice” but later on, he molded his principles of Justice as mentioned above in his work “Justice as Fairness”.

The first principle of equal basic liberties is to be used for designing the political constitution, while the second principle applies primarily to social and economic institutions.

According to him, the First principle is more important than the Second Principle and within the second principle, the first condition is more important.

  

Importance of Difference Principle

The Difference Principle says that inequalities are permissible only when the distribution of goods benefits the poorest members of the society. He believes that this is a rational choice because:

“Each member of society has an equal claim on their society’s goods. Natural attributes should not affect this claim, so the basic right of any individual, before further considerations are taken into account, must be to an equal share in material wealth. What, then, could justify unequal distribution?”

Difference Principles is something which is concerned about the absolute position of the least advantaged group. Rawls is not opposed to the idea of Strict Equality but if the least advantaged group can be brought forward by adopting some inequalities in income and wealth, then the Difference Principle will promote such inequality to the point that the absolute position of the least advantaged can no longer be raised.

Overall Argument

1. What would be chosen in the Original Position is just. This is because the OP is set up in such a way as to guarantee a fair outcome. The parties start in a position of equality, and no one can unfairly privilege himself, since no one knows their position in the society.

2. Rawls’ Two Principles of justice would be chosen in the Original Position.

3. Therefore, Rawls’ Two Principles are just (and so should be adopted).

General Criticisms

1.      One of the main criticisms is that Rawls fails to explain that why the relative position of the worst-off is more important than their absolute position.

2.      The Difference Principle may require redistributive taxation and Libertarians object that such kind of taxation involves the immoral taking of just holdings. Basically, it is an unacceptable infringement on liberty.

3.      The Difference Principle fails to take into account the fact that the people deserve certain benefits (economic or social) in light of their actions.

4.      Amartya Sen says that the basic notion of fairness is fine but there can be multiple products of the reflective equilibrium behind the veil of ignorance. So, restricting it to just two principles does not make sense.

5.      Dworkin says that hypothetical contracts are not contracts. Why should we care about hypothetical agreements?

6.      Nozick says that there is no reason to think the O.P. results in a correct distribution. What if grades in a class were distributed according to a similar procedure? Is there reason to think that the resulting distribution would be correct?

Following are my comments:

1.      The concept of Veil of Ignorance sounds purely utopian. It has been discussed by various theorists but the fact remains that it is a concept which is not possible in the present world. Today is an age of information. I do not think that it is possible to conceal such material facts from an individual about his own life. Hence, I have serious doubts regarding whether the concept of Veil of Ignorance could ever be implemented in a free thinking and a democratic society. It is surely possible to implement it in a totalitarian regime where the government rules with an iron fist and has the power, resources and the will to conceal all such facts from an individual.

2.      Also, I have serious doubts regarding the concept of Original Position. It is a hypothetical situation in which people have agreed upon general principles which would govern the society. Firstly, they would never agree on implementing the Veil of Ignorance. Secondly, to assume that people won’t make any errors in reasoning and choose only the principles of Justice is also an unsustainable argument.

3.      Also, why would people agree to the Difference Principle? I believe that man is selfish and pleasure seeking by nature. To convince him to redistribute resources for the least advantaged is very difficult. I agree with the concept of Difference Principle but not the form which Rawls has proposed.

4.      I have another academic doubt. It is important to note that most of the civilizations are based on the foundations of war. So, during wartime would this theory be applicable when the state has other relevant priorities to address?

5.      Are Liberty and Equality, the only two principles on which we would base our society? Are not other principles such as fraternity, belief, faith etc. also equally important? I keep on asking myself this question.

6.      Why care about hypothetical agreements. It would be better to have a theory that keeps into mind the ground realities and does not take into account utopian concepts such as “Veil of Ignorance”.

7.      Also, if a person wants to live like a hermit and is not interested in gaining any kind of goods or wealth or has renounced wealth, this theory would fail to apply to him. And if it is applied to him it would be against his liberty and wish. This is a paradoxical situation that the theory is creating.

8.      This theory says that inequality is only permissible when it benefits the least advantaged section of the society. But between the rich and the poor lies the Middle Class. This theory fails to address their concerns. This is even truer in Indian Context where the middle class is also suffering a lot.

But I feel that the need for Distributive Justice is very pertinent today. In a country like India where Economic Disparity has only increased, affirmative action and distributive justice play a significant role in uplifting the least advantaged sections of the society. Thus, I agree with Rawls in principle but not in the form which he has talked about. 

This Blog contains a paper on "Distributive Justice and WTO" as well.